The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday took a stern stand against corruption within the legal fraternity, refusing to entertain a bail petition from a 70-year-old advocate accused of demanding a ₹30 lakh bribe to influence a judicial order. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, characterized the allegations as an attempt to “sell the judiciary.”
The petitioner had approached the top court challenging a February order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had previously denied him bail. Faced with the apex court’s clear disinclination to grant relief, the advocate’s counsel chose to withdraw the plea.
Case Background and Allegations
The matter dates back to August 2025, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR following a complaint in a divorce matter pending before a court in Punjab. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹30 lakh from the complainant, claiming he could exercise personal influence over a judicial officer to secure a favorable order.
A trap was subsequently laid by the CBI. During the operation, a co-accused, allegedly acting on the petitioner’s behalf, was caught accepting ₹4 lakh as a part payment of the demanded bribe. Following his arrest in August last year, a special CBI court in Chandigarh dismissed his bail application in September.
“No Sympathy”: The Court’s Observations
During the hearing on Wednesday, the petitioner’s counsel argued for relief on the grounds that the advocate had been in custody for eight months and that charges in the case were yet to be framed. The counsel also highlighted the petitioner’s age—70 years—and associated health issues.
The bench, however, remained unmoved by these arguments. “He is selling the judiciary… We have no sympathy for such people,” the court observed.
Addressing the counsel directly, the bench remarked, “You (petitioner) tried to sell a judge in the open market.” When the counsel emphasized the petitioner’s age, the bench responded that it was not a “simple trap case,” noting that at 69 or 70, the accused was allegedly engaging in the sale of judicial integrity.
Previous Legal Proceedings
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier denied bail, citing the gravity of the allegations. However, the High Court had granted the petitioner the liberty to move a fresh bail application once two key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined.
In his defense before the High Court, the advocate had claimed he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was a “motivated and malicious exercise of power.” The CBI had strongly opposed the plea, maintaining that the nature of the allegations was exceptionally grave.
By withdrawing the petition in the Supreme Court today, the advocate remains in custody as the trial proceeds.
